The Mark Latham Diaries

I'm not a fan of the bloke, and mentioned at the time that the Labor Party made an awful mistake when they elected him as their leader in 2003, but I picked up a copy of his diaries this week, and they're quite interesting if you're into politics. Some of his entries are crude and sexest, however to focus on this (as the media have universally done) is to totally ignore the book's political substance.

The salutary point about the diaries - and again a point ignored by the media - is that they are not a retrospective attack on the Labor Party or the political system, but entries compiled over a decade. The entries are incredibly consistent in their lament of the problems facing the ALP and the flaws in the political process. There's also a superbly written essay at the beginning of the book, which fleshes out these subjects.

Just judging by what I've seen in the news, he seems like a pretty two faced and bitter guy.

Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber

Only a bunch of convicts having been beaten 3-0 and gone 9 tests without a win and won just 1 in 11 against England could go into the home series saying they will win. England will win in Australia again this winter as they are a better side which they have shown this summer. 3-0 doesn't lie girls.

I said a while back that there would be a re-evaluation of Latham's period of the leadership within the party after enough time had passed for people to look back on it objectively - boy was I wrong, because Latham's book has clearly made sure that can't ever happen. (I do like how Julia Gillard has handled what could have been damning praise from him - she's turned what might have been a taint into an opportunity to further the idea of her leadership in the public's consciousness.)

I haven't gotten the book at this stage, though I suspect at some stage I will. From what I've read in the past, Latham is actually a pretty good ideas man, and what went wrong was that he should have stayed in policy, and not been a public candidate with the obligations and social pressures that opposition leader (and Prime Minister) creates. It's been an education watching people like Bob Hawke trying to reinvent history and redefine their stated opinions of the man though.

Although some of his rhetoric was not my flavor (I mean politically, not the coarseness) - for a right-faction candidate, he certainly seemed to understand some of the leftist ideas of redistribution of wealth better than some of those actually in the left faction. And yes, the ALP is a fairly sick beast. I get the sense though, that as you say, the diaries operate as far more than a gripe sheet about who he didn't like in politics.

But Beasley's a pr*ck, he's right about that.

"Youre known for having a liking for men who look like women."
- Linda

"FFS I'm sick and tired of having to see a bloke bend over to pick something up or lean over and see their arse crack. For christ's sake pull your pants up or buy some underpants you bogan because nobody want's to see it. And this is a boat building shed (well one of them) not a porn studio."
- Craig

The way he talks you would think hes a perfect little angel whos never done anything wrong, everything that has gone bad in his life is someone elses fault and hes always been the victim. Makes you wonder how he got elected opposition leader in the first place...

I'm glad Labor are not running this country, we would be shafted (let's see higher interest rates, bringing home troops home from Iraq home early which is giving into the terrorists, and many more I could name would turn into a fiasco).

Howard isn't perfect I will give you that, but at least he is a better option then Latham or Beazley.

Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

Originally Posted by Boobidy

Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.

I'm glad Labor are not running this country, we would be shafted (let's see higher interest rates, bringing home troops home from Iraq home early which is giving into the terrorists, and many more I could name would turn into a fiasco).

Howard isn't perfect I will give you that, but at least he is a better option then Latham or Beazley.

While obviously I think you're wrong (although Beazley is only marginally better than Howard), what does this have to do with the topic? Howard made a post about Latham's book and why it's an interesting read, and you respond by saying that the ALP shouldn't be in government because we'd be bringing troops home from Iraq. Point of order on the question of relevance?

I mentioned in refrence to some of the daft policies came up with by Labor if they got voted in and it was in reference to the in-fignting in the ALP (hardly hidden knowledge is it?) and it is clear they have no unity so how can we possibly expect them to run the country?

I mentioned in refrence to some of the daft policies came up with by Labor if they got voted in and it was in reference to the in-fignting in the ALP (hardly hidden knowledge is it?) and it is clear they have no unity so how can we possibly expect them to run the country?

Read it again or do you suffer from selective reading?

You simply said you're glad they weren't in power and then cited "policies" (in reality only the troop pull-out is a policy, the higher interest rates is an unfounded accusation which you for some inexplicable reason state as a fact) which were entirely unrelated to the subject matter of Latham's book.

Anyway, both parties have plenty of infighting, and you're blind if you don't see it on the Coalition side. Have you missed the splits over Telstra over the last couple of years? Costello and Howard's oft-discussed tensions? It's no different from what remained unfounded in the ALP until Latham's book, and undoubtedly more about the infighting issues will come out after Howard's Prime Ministership is finished, as it does with every PM. Saying "this disgruntled ex-leaders frustration with the party clearly shows they are incapable of leading" sounds like a baiting statement from a Coalition backbencher much more than any sort of reasoned argument.

The ALP is not capable of leading the country. The civil war's in their party seem much greater then the Coalition trials and tribulations. But noone can really say which one is greater..

The fact is though that most people would prefer Howard to Latham.

I'd say you'd get a similar response if you did the Howard vs. Beazley. Beazley's a washed up ex leader with no more lead left in his pencil. Are there even any differences between Beazley's Labour and the Liberal party. Not nearly as much as you would expect.

ALP's in complete shambles ATM. Not because of all this Latham BS, but because they lack a backbone. I thought Latham might be it at first, but obviously not.

Labour ain't gonna get nowhere with Beazley.. It's as sure as death and taxes.